Snakehead Consumption Enhances Wound Healing? From Tradition to Modern Clinical Practice: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Snakehead fish (Channa striatus) is a fresh water fish indigenous to many Asia countries and believed to have medical value. Studies showed that it contains all the essential amino acids and fatty acids able to accelerate wound healing and it has antinociceptive effect. However, little human study has been done to assess the effectiveness of Channa striatus in wound healing. A prospective RCT has been conducted on the effect of Channa striatus spray versus placebo on clean wound to assess its pain control effect and cosmetic outcome. Methodology. One hundred and two patients (102) underwent clean elective surgery; postoperatively they were randomized into two group. One group received Channa striatus extract spray (n=51) another group received placebo (n=51) on daily basis for 2 weeks. They were followed up on 2nd, 4th, and 6th weeks. Pain control effect was assessed based on Visual Analog Pain Score (VAPS) and cosmetic outcome based on Visual Analog Cosmetic Scale (VACS), Wound Evaluation Scale (WES), and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). Result. The patient treated with Channa striatus spray displayed a better outcome in terms of pain control compared to placebo. During analysis using repeated measure ANOVA, there was significant difference of patient’s pain score based on VAPS between Channa striatus spray and placebo (F‐stat (df) = 4.80 (2), p‐value = 0.010). For cosmetic outcome it showed a better result in Channa striatus spray group for all the 3‐scoring system, VACS, (F‐stat (df) = 2.68 (2) , p‐value <0.001), WES (F‐stat (df) = 3.09 (2), p‐value = 0.048), and VSS (F‐stat (df) = 1.72 (2) , p‐value = 0.011). Conclusion. Our study suggest that application of Channa striatus extract spray on clean wound has shown a significant better pain score result and cosmetic outcome on week 2, week 4, and week 6 comparatively with placebo.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".